UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6975

THOMAS BRANT GEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CYNTHIA THORNTON; FRANK PERRY,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00187-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Amended:

Decided:

October 24, 2014

November 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Brant Gee, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Brant Gee seeks to appeal the district courts
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

untimely

28

U.S.C.

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

issues

certificate

2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

absent

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Gee has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Gees motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to

proceed

dispense

in

with

forma

pauperis,

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED